asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest details of unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

At 9th February, there were 1,445,863 people registered as unemployed in Great Britain.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the youth employment programme is of great importance to all people? Will he give the House an assurance that there are enough funds available to make the programme a reality, particularly for Greater London?

I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's concern, particularly for the success of this programme in the London area. I can assure him that on the budget allocation for 1978–79 Greater London will receive £8·1 million to fund the youth opportunities programme in that area.

What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the number of sectors in the economy in which employment is still rising? Is it his view that the underlying trend is still upwards?

It is the case that as of now there is still a strong possibility that the increase in the number of people in employment may not be sufficient to offset the additional number of people who seek jobs, particularly during the period of the summer school leaving. Therefore, the trend is very difficult to predict at present and may well depend upon the success of the youth opportunities programme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Newham, we have a stress area with a number of problems, too many to enumerate but including unemployment? We have a scheme for a new court to be established, in which all the money and everything could be agreed upon, and someone, somewhere has stopped it.

I assure my hon. Friend that I discuss with all my Cabinet colleagues the job implications of their own Departments' programmes. But the programme that I am announcing is of particular relevance in my hon. Friend's area in obtaining jobs for young people, and a general increase in the building programme would not automatically bring about the solution of the problem of young people's employment.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition give a general welcome to the youth opportunities programme announced today and to the special temporary employment programme? We shall be studying the details with close attention.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he has given to the youth opportunities programme and shall be only too willing to furnish him and his hon. Friends with all the details of the programme that they might require. I hope that that will ensure continuing support for the programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent consultations he has had with the Chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service on the operation of the Employment Protection Act.

From time to time my right hon. Friend has informal talks with the Chairman of ACAS about various aspects of the operation of the Employment Protection Act.

Will the Minister confirm that neither the Bill introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) nor the Bill introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) to amend the Act has the support of the Council of ACAS?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the confirmation that he seeks, because the Council of ACAS, which is responsible for determining the policy of that body, has declined to express a view about either Bill.

When does my hon. Friend expect real progress to be made on the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, which is presently in Committee?

I hope that Opposition Members will have regard to that matter, because after three or four sittings we are still on Clause 1, and that will cause some anxiety to those who have other Private Members' Bills waiting to enter that Standing Committee.

Did the work that the Minister's Department commissioned with Industrial Facts and Forecasting Ltd. last year include an assessment of the way in which Schedule 11 of the Act was affecting the general level of inflation? If no such assessment was made by that organisation, will an assessment be made this year?

I cannot answer that question without notice. I shall see exactly what the terms of reference were, but I doubt whether they included a commitment along the lines the hon. Gentleman suggests, though I am prepared to reflect on what he said.

In view of mounting evidence that the Act is stifling more jobs than it is creating, particularly in small businesses, will the Government, instead of taking cover behind two Private Member's Bills, introduce their own Bill to increase the exemptions from the application of the Act?

We have said that we are prepared—after a reasonable period of experience of the working of the Act to see how it is applying. I refute the hon. Gentleman's allegation about mounting evidence. I am prepared to accept that there are mounting complaints, but they are a different matter from evidence. Most of the complaints are not about the Act but are about the unfair dismissal provisions introduced by the Industrial Relations Act 1971.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that 10 remains a realistic minimum number for eligibility for temporary employment subsidy.

Yes, Sir. Although we appreciate the difficulty that this causes, to reduce the threshold further would need substantial increases in staffing if long, damaging delays in the processing of other claims were to be avoided.

Will the Minister reconsider that, because it is very unrealistic today to have to have 10 unemployed people before one can receive a TES? Secondly, as industry in the same area seems to suffer the same sort of fate at the same time, will the hon. Gentleman consider accepting TES applications from a number of firms which form themselves into a co-operative?

We feel that any further reduction in the threshold would bring in a large number of applications for what would be a relatively small number of jobs saved, and would cause considerable administrative problems and add to the backlog with which we are now dealing. However, we shall look at the hon. Gentleman's latter point.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the threshold level could be academic for many workers in the clothing, textiles and footwear industries if the European Community gets its way? Will he advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make clear to the bureaucrats in Brussels that we shall not end the TES until there has been a thoroughgoing review of the multiplicity of employment subsidy schemes in all the other European Community countries?

My right hon. Friend has made the Government's views very clear in Brussels, as in this House. At this stage I cannot add to what he has already told the House.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in areas of high seasonal unemployment, areas of tourism, and so on, the scheme has not worked all that effectively so far? There are examples where it was applied initially and then withheld for a subsequent season. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter so that next season there will be an opportunity for concerns in tourist areas to maintain a nucleus of skilled people through to the next season and improve their performance?

I understand the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but it is a temporary employment subsidy scheme and has a limited duration, although there is now a supplementary addition to the scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Acts, so far as the closed shop is concerned.

I have received several, but detailed analysis of these representations could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Does the hon. Gentleman think it fair and right that British Rail should have dismissed without compensation 40 of its employees who refused to join a trade union and two more of its employees who withdrew from a trade union in consequence of the provisions of the Acts?

I have explained to the hon. Gentleman and the House repeatedly that it is not for the Government to say what the terms of the union membership agreement should be. These are entirely within the collective bargaining process and are determined between the employer and union. However, I have pleaded on several occasions for those who enter into union membership agreements to apply them in a reasonable and tolerable way, and I hope that that is the practice that is followed.

Does my hon. Friend realise that when we meet our constituents in our surgeries we find that the worst type of problem is that of those workers who do not join unions and then face a legal action the costs of which they are unable to meet? Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues do all they can to encourage all workers to join the appropriate trade union?

I give my hon. Friend the promise that I shall do that, and have been trying to. One area of common ground between both sides of the House in industrial relations is the desire to see the growth of collective bargaining, which I believe should be based on strong trade unions.

As the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act places a duty on the Government in terms of a Press charter, will the Minister ensure that the draft Press charter brought before the House contains a provision making clear that journalists must have some exclusion from the operation of the closed shop?

Among the obligations placed on my right hon. Friend and myself in preparing the charter is to take fully into account the Act from which it stems and its provisions in relation to the establishment of union membership agreements.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many self-financing productivity schemes are currently being monitored by his Department.

My Department has been informed of about 520 productivity schemes which the employer concerned has confirmed to be fully self-financing.

Is the Minister satis-field that 69 staff in his Department, with a number of other duties, are enough to monitor these schemes sufficiently closely to satisfy those who are not the beneficiaries of such schemes that they are genuinely self-financing?

Whether their number is adequate, the staff are hard-pressed but coping very well. I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to them. As to the extent to which the schemes are self-financing, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that while the policy is voluntary the vetting of self-financing productivity schemes is conducted in relation to the paragraph 16 sanctions. I hope that in addition the hon. Gentleman has seen the Written Reply from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, which shows the role that the Price Commission will have.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest unemployment rate in the North-West of England.

At 9th February the unemployment rate in the North-West Region was 7·5 per cent.

Does the Minister agree that the trend in the North-West is exceptionally worrying? Is he aware of the small share of European Investment Bank loans which has been received in the North-West and the very low level of European Regional Development Fund aid for unemployed persons received by the North-West as compared with other areas? Will he make representations to ensure that this is rectified in the future?

Of course the situation is very worrying, but what is important is the amount of money put into the region, and not its sources, and £400 million has been put into the North-West region as financial assistance in the five years up to March 1977. As the House well knows, we made it clear to Brussels that the North-West has been heavily dependent upon the temporary employment subsidy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the efforts being made by his Department to reduce unemployment in the North-West are being undermined by decisions, as in Merseyside, that will lose 3,000 jobs at a stroke? Does he not agree that it is time that he discussed with his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet the contradictions that exist between these two forms of action?

My right hon. Friend discusses these problems constantly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The Government must leave it to British Leyland to take commercial decisions on its own account.

Has the Minister seen the article in The Guardian of today, which suggests that, like the job creation scheme, the youth opportunities scheme in Merseyside may be being handicapped by the weight of the requirements from bureaucracy and the additional staff being employed? Will he look into that area and see that this programme is not being handicapped?

I have not read The Guardian today. I have been at the Birmingham partnership meeting, and travelling back. I have not had time to read it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that for structural and geographical reasons, the North-West, comparatively, has deteriorated more rapidly than any other region? Will he, therefore, channel a greater concentration and share of Government resources and, indeed, of Common Market grants, and Government contracts and other aid into these older urban areas, upon which the wealth of this nation was originally founded?

We do not want to talk about a league table for comparing regions. What is important is that we give as much assistance to each region as possible to deal with the problems of unemployment and industrial decline.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a reply given to me by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, he said that the decision in relation to the 3,000 jobs to which I had referred was a matter for Leyland. However, I understand from a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry that there are at the moment proposals being put forward by Leyland as part of a corporate plan which ultimately will go before the National Enterprise Board and eventually, I suppose, will be considered by some Cabinet committee. Therefore, it is misleading for the Under-Secretary to say that this is a British Leyland decision and out of context—

Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is really putting forward an argument which no doubt he would have liked to make at Question Time. It is not a point of order for me to resolve.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what he estimates will be the effect on employment of the enhancement of the Government's activities concerning the blacklisting of companies considered to be in breach of the pay guidelines; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated effect on unemployment of the operation of the revised arrangements for the Government's voluntary incomes policy black list.

The current pay policy and the steps that we are taking in support of it are essential if we are to beat inflation and beating inflation is essential if we are to maintain and increase employment.

Do not jobs depend heavily upon investment? Does the Secretary of State think that the black list will contribute or will not contribute towards the creation of that climate of investment which has been clearly identified by the Wilson Committee as having a great deal to do with certainty, which is hardly likely to be assisted by the Government's black list?

I certainly accept that jobs are dependent to a considerable extent upon investment, but the advice that I and other Ministers are receiving as to the private sector's intentions with regard to investment suggests to me that it will be more prepared to invest if we have a lower inflation rate than if we have a higher one.

Does not the Secretary of State's answer this afternoon suggest that he is not monitoring at all the effects of blacklisting on employment? From recent exchanges in the House, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the problems of the electrical and road haulage contracting industries, and of the John Lewis Partnership and the impact on it of reduced tendering opportunities for health authorities and local government. What is his estimate of the lost opportunities and what is his Department doing about it?

I do not have to institute a special monitoring procedure. Since the House passed the Employment Protection Act, every firm that declares 10 or more redundancies has to notify my Department. On the basis of that information, I know that no redundancies have been brought about as a result of the Government's having applied discretionary measures in terms of their pay policy.

In a recent court case, the Attorney-General was quoted as saying that it is not the Government's intention to interfere in any way with a legally binding agreement. What is the definition of a legally binding agreement?

I think that I had better call upon my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to answer that question. However, I have looked at the court case to which I believe my hon. Friend refers, and for that purpose any contract entered into between the employer and a union or between employer and employee is a binding agreement upon them. What we had to consider was whether it would be proper to apply a discretion for any purpose other than persuading people in this situation to renegotiate agreements. We decided that it would not be proper. Therefore, we do not use discretionary powers to seek to bring about a breach of such an agreement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under the blacklist provisions a main contractor is responsible for the conduct of his subcontractors and that in a fiercely competitive industry, such as the electronics industry, where one can buy from this country or abroad, the safest action for any main contractor is to buy from a foreign supplier?

It is certainly the case that under the discretionary procedure following from paragraph 16 of the White Paper, a major contractor has to pass on similar conditions to sub-contractors, but there is nothing unique in that. The provisions of the fair wages clause also pass an obligation from main contractors to sub-contractors. I have not heard of that being used as an argument for buying supplies from abroad rather than in this country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the "model" capitalist economy of West Germany has had a low level of inflation but that the unemployment rate there is now well above 1 million and is rising steadily? Is that not a clear indication that what we require are socialist policies to deal with our unemployment problem?

I certainly accept that the experience of West Germany shows that a low rate of inflation in itself is not enough to solve problems of unemployment. However, whenever the opportunity has arisen, my right hon. and hon. Friend and I have urged West Germany to use certain other advantages that it has had as a result of a low rate of inflation to expand its economy to the advantage not only of its own unemployed but of world trade generally.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he remains satisfied with the workings of the job release scheme; and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied with the workings of the current job release scheme, but my right hon. Friend announced in the House on 30th January 1978 that we plan that it should be extended—in a revised form—for a further year until 31st March 1979.

Does the Minister agree that in this nationally agreed scheme, involving both the CBI and the TUC, it is totally unwarranted for local trade union officials to object to the release of a man who has been a lifetime member of the trade union movement? Is not the Minister abdicating his responsibility in refusing to intervene?

No, because when we introduced the scheme we made it absolutely clear that the release would be dependent upon agreement by the employer and the trade union concerned. We have had one objection from a trade union district secretary; several from employers.

Does the Minister agree that earlier retirement is not only socially attractive but also a very real way of combating unemployment. Does he agree that his scheme would be doubly attractive if the upper age limit were reduced well below the age of 64? When, in the interests of flexibility, will this be considered by his Department?

Whether or not early retirement is attractive depends on how much one is given in that retirement. I think that the question is one of cost. If enough were given to me, I would retire immediately.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current balance, as between boys and girls, unemployed in the 16 to 19 years age groups; and how this will be affected by the Easter school leavers.

On 12th January, the latest date for which such figures are available, there were 142,337 boys under 20 unemployed in Great Britain, compared with 132,485 girls. It is not possible to say precisely how this position will be affected by the Easter school leavers, but it is estimated that about 37,000 boys and 34,000 girls will be leaving school this Easter in England and Wales and will be available for employment.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information. Can he say what special steps the Manpower Services Commission is taking to train girls in industrial skills, since there is a shortage of skilled workers in industry that is constantly creating a bottleneck in development?

Special facilities have been made available by the Manpower Services Commission to the Training Services Agency for the training of girls. In addition, a great deal of emphasis has been placed upon the work experience programme, in which girls have had a disproportionate number of places.

Is the Minister aware that there will be widespread concern over this morning's announcement about the youth opportunities programme, to the effect that there are still no guidelines for the recruitment of the persons who are to train the young people involved? Does he realise that the programme is designed to start on 1st April and that all we have had today is information that should have been produced last November? Will the Minister put a rocket behind the Manpower Services Commission?

One reason why decisions have been delayed is to do with the consultations that hon. Members and Ministers have had with the Manpower Services Commission over its original proposals. I shall, however, pass on to the Commission the hon. Gentleman's disquiet.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite what he has said, one month before it is due to start there are still no guidelines to assist those who are to run the schemes? Is he aware of the report today of the difficulties with the training workshops? Does he realise that there are problems with the employment induction schemes and the skill-centres? Is he further aware that many of us are concerned that the Government's objectives in this programme may well not be realised?

My hon. Friend has pressed on me time and again the need for there to be local involvement in decision-making. The area boards have just been established and are just meeting. There would have been criticism in the House if guidelines that were too firm had been laid down covering the local people and allowing no expression of their views.

Since the youth employment subsidy is ending on 31st March, may I ask the Minister to confirm that all of those who were previously eligible for that subsidy will be included in the new youth opportunities programme, which we all welcome?

Those who were included in the youth employment subsidy will be included in one scheme or another— either the youth opportunities programme or the special temporary employment programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss youth unemployment; and whether he will make a statement.

I frequently meet the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss a wide range of issues, including youth unemployment.

What contingency plans does the Secretary of State have for dealing with the problem of youth unemployment if, as seems likely, looking at the prospects for employment in this country, the youth opportunities programme announced officially today, however welcome, is unable to match up to the realities of the position?

The youth opportunities programme is based upon the best possible calculation that can be made of the needs of young people leaving school this year. It will bring about a doubling of provision in the 16–18 age range, produc- ing about 240,000 places. Our experience of job creation and work experience programmes indicates that, with the improvements that the Government brought about in the youth opportunities programme, this will assist the vast majority of young people in obtaining work.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, welcome though the statement that he has made is, what the Government ought now to be considering is a massive refurbishing of all our social services, particularly the National Health Service? This will involve the spending of a considerable amount of public money. Is he aware that by so doing the Government will be calling the Tories' bluff, since they want unemployment to be reduced but insist that the Government must not indulge in any form of public spending?

I agree with the implications of my hon Friend's question. It is the case that over the past 10 years a large part of the diminution of employment in our manufacturing industry has been offset by the increase in employment implicit in the raising of the standards of social services. I urge hon. Members to consider that, if they wish to press this line for dealing with unemployment—I shall listen to it sympathetically—it cannot be squared entirely with the calls for massive reductions in taxation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that the success of the youth opportunities programme depends to a large extent on voluntary organisations and voluntary effort? Is he aware that there is immense frustration among those organisations because they have still not been told the basis on which they are expected to work, starting on 1st April?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The success of the youth opportunities programme depends to an enormous extent on the support it receives from the voluntary organisations, employers, unions and community bodies. It is not my experience, going round the country and talking to these people, that they are unaware of the seven main elements of the programme. Many of them have already had discussions with people in the local manpower services committees to work out the ways in which they can operate within the programme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Birmingham garage proprietors are being forced to wait for many months by the Road Transport Industry Training Board before receiving a response to requests for sponsorship for apprentices? Is he further aware that in many cases employers with a good apprenticeship training record have been disappointed in their requests for financial support this year? Does he agree that this is discouraging youth employment and adding to Birmingham's already difficult problems? Will he undertake to look into this question?

I shall certainly undertake to look into this matter. We have been trying to give priority to increasing the number of apprenticeships which can be run by the award and training grant system. If there is a particular problem in that area, we can bring our Department's resources to bear upon it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many officials in his Department are responsible for dealing with measures to reduce unemployment in Scotland.

The number of staff employed on the measures to reduce unemployment in Scotland which are directly administered by my Department is 22.

Does the Minister realise that it is now four years to the day since the Labour Party won the last General Election on the slogan

"Back to work with Labour."?

The Labour Party has not deceived the people of Scotland. The Labour Government have worked hard, through special measures, to reduce the incidence of unemployment in Scotland.

Irrespective of the number of people employed at the Department dealing with measures to reduce unemployment in Scotland, may I ask the Minister whether he accepts that the doubling of unemployment figures since February 1974 is totally unacceptable? Does he agree that the solution to the problem lies in bringing forward a reflationary Budget which will expand Scotland's manufacturing base, which has declined by 9·3 per cent. since the Government came into office?

I agree that the unemployment figure is unacceptable. The level of reflation must depend upon how much inflation the people of Scotland will be prepared to suffer.

Is the Minister not ashamed that, despite being elected in February 1974 on a pledge to reduce unemployment—I have that pledge here—the jobless total in Scotland has almost doubled, to 200,000? Since the Government's policies are clearly not working, may I ask whether the Secretary of State for Employment would be willing to hold a special convention in Scotland of small and large firms, to take their advice on the way in which investment might be improved and employment increased?

The Labour Party manifesto is one of those documents that I do know about. What was very clearly said in the manifesto was that the first priority would be given to the fight against inflation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what extra efforts, in view of the continual high level of unemployment, he is making to assist those registered disabled persons at present on the unemployed list.

I am advised by the Manpower Services Commission that it has recently published its development programme of employment and training services for disabled people over the next 5–10 years. The programme includes a substantial number of proposals for improvements and developments and gives indications of relative priorities. The Commission is also carrying out a long-term campaign encouraging employers to adopt the six major guidelines of "Positive Policies", the guide to employing disabled people which was issued in May 1977 to about 55,000 employers. The job introduction and capital grants schemes are also assisting, although take-up has been disappointingly slow.

Is the Minister aware that, because of persistently high levels of unemployment, those disabled people without jobs are becoming increasingly disheartened and disenchanted? Although the difficulties can be admitted, does he not think that in the present circumstances he owes it to them to initiate a much stronger drive than the one he has enumerated, which is aimed at 5–10 years hence?

No. I think, with respect, that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. Although I talked about the development programme for disabled people for 5–10 years hence, the positive policies are not aimed at the long term but are being implemented now and will have a continuing effect. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular methods that he would like to see adopted, he may, of course, suggest them. Some people think that greater enforcement is the answer, but I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman would go along that road.

Is my hon. Friend aware that every time I call for the prosecution of employers who are breaking the law with regard to the disabled quota system I am told that the Department prefers persuasion to prosecution? Is he further aware that in 1976 the Department prosecuted 2,000 workers who fraudulently claimed unemployment benefit? Why do the Government adopt double standards? Why cannot they either prosecute all lawbreakers or none?

Our reason for taking the view that persuasion is better than coercion is that that is the advice that we have had very strongly from, in particular, the National Advisory Council for the Employment of Disabled People. That body is expert in this field. It represents disabled people and has on it representatives of employers and trade unions. At present, when more positive policies are being implemented, it is right that we should give that line of approach a fair wind. But the quota system will be reviewed by the Manpower Services Commission before the end of 1979, and perhaps we shall have to look at the question of harsher methods of enforcement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest figures of disabled unemployed.

I am advised by the Manpower Services Commission that on 12th January 1978, the latest date for which figures are available, 148,688 disabled people were unemployed, of whom 74,992 are registered as disabled.

Does the Minister accept that these figures indicate the disastrous failure of his policies for the disabled unemployed?

I do not think that it is true to say that it is a disastrous policy. The hon. Gentleman is not being fair unless he tells us what sort of measures he would like to see adopted.

As my hon. Friend knows, I have written to him about this problem. As a short-term measure, could not some moves be made with local authorities to make sure that they employ their quota of disabled persons? Many of these authorities—as in the case of those around Bristol—are certainly doing so.

I have pressed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to take further action to draw the attention of the local authorities to the low level of compliance with the quota, but it is only fair to say that although there is a lot of criticism of the public sector in this respect, we are not able to look at figures for the private sector. I have carried out a small experiment in the private sector among opinion formers as employers, and have asked to see the figures of the national newspapers, television companies, the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, and leading trade unions and employers' associations, as well as the Conservative Party Central Office, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, although the Liberal Party, with only 18½ employees, does not have an obligation. I hope that we shall be able to get permission to publish the figures.

Will the Minister be a little more frank and admit that the reason why the Government do not wish to use their statutory powers to pursue employers who are in breach of their obligations under the Act is that the Government, as the largest employer in the country, are overwhelmingly again and again in breach of their own statutory obligations?

No, that is not so. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, as always, is reading sinister motives into a situation when such motives do not exist. I have already given the reason. We have had independent advice—which is more than one could say for the hon. Gentleman's advice—that we should follow a policy of persuasion at this time.

In view of the last reply, will the Minister give a definite assurance here and now that every one of the Government Departments and every one of the Ministries is carrying out the statutes? If he is unable to give such an assurance, what will he do about it?

Of course, I cannot give such an assurance. I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman has not read the Department of Employment Gazette of the Official Report. [Interruption.] If hon. Members would listen for a moment, I would point out that there would not be enough registered disabled employees to go round anyway, if they were all found jobs.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not raising the matter at the time that I received the answer from the Under-Secretary of State, but his answer was improper and misleading, in the sense—

Order. In order to save the time devoted to Questions to the Prime Minister, I ask the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) to make his point a little later.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28th February 1978.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Will the Prime Minister. as part of his official duties, comment upon the continuing shameful unemployment figures? Is he aware that youth employment programmes and job creation schemes do nothing to solve the underlying problems creating unemployment? Does he accept that there is one thing that he can do to regenerate British industry and get people back to work, and that is to regard Thursday's by-election results as a vote of confidence?

The programmes announced today by the Manpower Services Commission are particularly important for all young people between the ages of 16 and 19, because the hope is that they will give either some form of training or further education to all young people who are unemployed beyond a certain period of time.

Will my right hon. Friend spend some time today in preparing a speech on the benefits brought to our culture and our society by immigrants, recent or otherwise, and thus say something to allay the genuine fears of a community which has been made to feel most unwelcome by bigots and vote-catchers?

I had thought until a few weeks ago that it was generally agreed that the immigrants in our society had brought a great many skills, certainly in the 1950s and 1960s, when the Conservative Government encouraged coloured nurses to come here, as well as coloured bus drivers and coloured Underground drivers. Now, coloured doctors are here. I always thought that this was generally accepted. If it is not now accepted, let me utter one word of warning to anyone who wants to dispute it—those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind.

Will the Prime Minister use some of his time today to consult the Secretary of State for Industry and the Leader of the House to ensure that we have an early debate on the Select Committee's report on the British Steel Corporation? Is he aware that this industry is losing about £10 million a week, and that Parliament has a duty to debate as soon as possible the sum and also some of the judgments in the report?

The right hon. Lady has given me no notice that she was raising this question. I do not know why a simple statement of fact should give rise to such jeers from the Opposition. It does not, of course, arise out of my official engagements for today.

We are also talking about the loss of £10 million a week, about the judgments in the Select Committee report, and about its recommendation that there should be a debate as soon as possible, preferably before the Minister's statement in March. These are all serious matters. I would have thought that both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Industry would be anxious to have this debate as soon as possible. That is what I am asking for.

I assure the right hon. Lady that we are most anxious to have that debate in the House, because, in addition to all the issues that she has raised, we are talking about many tens of thousands of jobs and their future.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Conservatives were in power we would soon have no steel industry, no shipbuilding industry and no motor car industry?

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, who is reinforcing a point that I have constantly made. If the policy of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) is carried out, the steel industry would be wound up next week.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 28th February.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).

Bearing in mind the commitment in the British Labour Party's manifesto during the British General Election in October 1974 that Scotland would have a development agency receiving extra funds in order to reflect North Sea oil revenue, will the Prime Minister today take time to read the report published by the Scottish Council (Development & Industry) yesterday, which advocated that Scotland should have two and a half times its population quota from revenues because of the special needs of Scotland? In view of the hideous unemployment position, and the Government's statement that there would be no special oil fund for Scotland, can we expect, prior to the Garscadden by-election, an early reversal of the Prime Minister's own decision?

I have not read the report, but I did read the Press accounts in the Scottish newspapers this morning. They form part of my daily diet, especially on Question days. I remind the hon. Lady that the Scottish Development Agency has had an allocation for its budget of £200 million which can be raised by order to £300 million. The agency has already spent or committed £88 million. Between 56,000 and 65,000 jobs relating to North Sea oil have already come into play in Scotland. With regard to the future, what obviously has to be borne in mind is the benefit which Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom should receive from the oil bonus that is now coming.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are duty bound, at this stage anyway, to honour the Beswick recommendations with regard to the steel industry and that any change in those recommendations must be by agreement between the Government, the British Steel Corporation and the trade unions involved?

I do not wish to comment on the Select Committee's report at this stage, because it is for the Government to prepare—as we shall—a proper reply to the Select Committee which pays due attention to these things, and to do it in a regular way, as we do with all Select Committees.

Bearing in mind that this is the fourth anniversary of the Labour Government's accession to power—

Hear, hear.

Order. One minute's applause is enough celebration.

Will the Prime Minister tell the Queen this evening how many of her subjects have gone "back to work with Labour"?

Yes. It is, of course, true that there are more people at work in manufacturing today than there were at the beginning of this decade. It is also true that there are a great many more people offering themselves for work than there were at the beginning of this decade or, indeed, in 1973. In case Conservative Members have not noticed the revolution, that is to say there are a lot more women offering themselves for work now than there were in those days. I ask the House to take this point seriously. I would be grateful if the Queen were not associated with this kind of question.

I am hardly known for my sycophancy on these matters, but may I commend the views of my right hon. Friend both in expressing the hope that there will be a comprehensive statement about the steel industry before Easter and in emphasising the fact that no changes can take place in that industry without consultation and, I hope, the full-hearted consent of the workers in that industry? Will he also accept that there is no solution to the problems of the industry in the views of people like the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition who believes that the only answer is to butcher it wholesale? Nor is there an answer among the ranks of those who believe that we can outlive the present crisis and have a viable steel industry without taking courageous decisions with regard to manpower and investment. The two run together. I realise that the Conservative Opposition are not interested—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be fair. There are only two minutes of Prime Minister's Question Time left.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is cutting out another question. That is what it amounts to.

Those of us who have followed the fortunes of the steel industry for many years have felt that one of the remarkable changes has been the estimates about the production that was likely to take place in this country. I have seen a great many figures bandied about with regard to countries like Korea and Japan, as well as many countries of the Third World, suggesting that the future of the steel industry in Europe in particular and in this country certainly is very different from what it was expected to be 10 years ago. Indeed, as my hon. Friend has said, a question which I hope will be taken seriously is what should be the proper size of the British steel industry, and what should be its future—or are we to take it that the Conservative Opposition want to wipe out the whole thing irrespective of the consequences?

In view of the Prime Minister's claim that there are now more people in manufacturing than in 1974 will he be kind enough to say why production is lower than it was in 1974?

That is a consequence, as I have said so often at this Dispatch Box, of our low productivity [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Opposition really are like a rather backward class on occasions. I am only quoting from "The Right Approach", which is the Bible of the Opposition. However, they may be in such a silly, giggly mood that they will laugh at anything. It is well known that, as "The Right Approach" said, for 30 years our productivity has lagged behind. It is not a matter with which the Government can concern themselves directly. But through the industrial strategy, with the wholehearted aid of the CBI and the TUC and against the constant derision of the Opposition, people are at work every day in the factories and trade unions to try to improve the situation, and God help us if the Conservative Party ever came to power and tried to reverse that.